What policital agenda? This is a US Supremem Court ruling that the Federal Gov't cannot deny Federal benefits such as social security benefit for those who are legally married in certain states, namely the states that allow same-sex marriage. It is very much news worthy.

Posted by Mike
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Jun 26, 2013 at 2:56 pm

Think harder Resident and don't get caught up in semantics or your passions. The message was perfectly clear, but I guess if someone HAS to argue, semantics is one of the last options, along with grammar checking. Its a great day for freedom in America. A great day for Americans who believe in American values of equality.
Its a terrible day for angry bigots though (in general, not pointing fingers)

Posted by harvardmom
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jun 26, 2013 at 3:14 pm

The bigots can have their say, but not their way. This is a long overdue civil right. The gay community never gave up the fight. Someone pointed out in another post that this will go too far and lead to similar rights for multiple spouses, animals and more. Not likely, but if it is to be, then let those leaders do what the gay community did--take 40+ years to bring it all the way to the US Supreme Court. They did a great job. It is indeed a day to celebrate. I only wish that socially liberal California would have been the leader in this movement. We should have been the first state to legalize gay marriage.

Posted by castro mom
a resident of Castro City
on Jun 26, 2013 at 4:04 pm

@harvardmom,, agree with everything you say, except the part "if it is to be". No animal should be subject to a human's desire to marry them. Consenting adults, fine, but leave the dog, cat, guinea pig out of it. Thanks!

Posted by Resident
a resident of Whisman Station
on Jun 26, 2013 at 4:46 pm

@harvardmom: Are you really so indifferent to people marrying their pets? I love my wife, and I love my cats, and I think that they all love me, but...it's different. Draw the line where you want for humans--although we see the issue differently, I can respect your view--but pets??? My goodness.

Posted by Wo\'O Ideafarm
a resident of another community
on Jun 26, 2013 at 7:30 pmWo\'O Ideafarm is a registered user.

This is not, and never has been, about civil rights. It is about silencing. If you do not know what I mean, that is because I, too, have been silenced. Had I been allowed to speak, you would all be familiar with the argument that I make that this is all about silencing:

"REDEFINING MARRIAGE SILENCES CORE RELIGIOUS IDEAS"

"QUEERS JUST WANT TO SILENCE INCONVENIENT IDEAS"

When I finally manage to tell the story of my silencing over the two and one half years that passed between the judge's ruling that started this issue on its way to the Supreme Court, you will see that there is no legitimacy whatsoever in today's ruling.

The argument, in brief, is that changing the meaning of the word "marriage" silences what I call "the marriage norm", which is a cultural specification of the rights and duties of a mated male and female. People who do not conform to that norm are called "queers". Queers naturally want to silence that norm. Today, they have achieved a major victory. But it is a battle victory. It is not the end of the war.

The queer viewpoint cannot withstand vigorous open debate. It cannot withstand close, intelligent, respectful scrutiny. Today's result is not the product of vigorous debate. It is the product of a propoganda machine applied to a powerless, passive, and childlike population.

I challenge anyone to debate this point with me, here, on my web site (Web Link), or anywhere else, either on the Internet or in person here in Mountain View.